Amateur Apologists: Why are they so bad?

[johnnyc176]

Again, I think the dangers of occasionally over enthusiastic or pushy apologists are far outweighed by the vast majority of Catholics who are silent.

Absolutely. In today’s world no matter how ‘charitable’ one is in proclaiming the Truth of Jesus Christ and His Church, the Catholic Church they will still be called intolerant, homophobic, bigot, hater and any other word that the world can come up with to bury the Truth in relativism. Of course nobody likes to be called those names so what happens is what the true objective of anti Catholicism is. We become cowards, shut up and come up with pat phrases like ‘well the best way to evangelize is by living your Faith’ or ‘well you know what St. Francis said…spread the Gospel and if necessary use words’. And of course the famous words of Jesus those who see you see me…oh wait.

 

[FractalFire]

Well, maybe I should let you two work out the “Protestants and atheists” thing; but I think you’re missing the primary question here: Are there times when it’s better to ignore something than to respond to it?

At thanksgiving dinner, maybe?

 

[Wildgraywolf]

But then what do you say if someone says “The other side said such-and-such, and your side didn’t refute it.”?

As I said in my post: I would answer the average Joe’s questions. The “ambushers” aren’t interested in hearing any explanation no matter how reasonable. I’m not “special forces”, I’m simply a soldier in the trenches. Professional apologists are better equipped with knowledge, experience and temperament to go toe-to-toe against the “ambushers”.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

So there is such thing as the ambushers. I am glad you say it. I used to call this category as the guerrillas that employed guerrilla tactic. If you are the conventional army, they can really mount severe damage on you.

Amen.

 

[Peter_J]

As I said in my post: I would answer the average Joe’s questions. The “ambushers” aren’t interested in hearing any explanation no matter how reasonable. I’m not “special forces”, I’m simply a soldier in the trenches. Professional apologists are better equipped with knowledge, experience and temperament to go toe-to-toe against the “ambushers”.

I like the “special forces” image.

But anyhow, to let you know where I’m coming from, I have a number (half a dozen at least) of friends who firmly believe in debating the “ambushers”. (Come to think of it, I should be careful what I say since they could be reading this. ) I’ve tried on various occasions to convince them that you have to draw a line somewhere, i.e. that there are some polemics (or ambushes or guerrillics) that are so bad that one shouldn’t engage them.

The response I get back is always some variation of “I can’t let them go unanswered!”

I suspect the way to get my friends to rethink their approach would be to follow their thinking to its logical end. E.g. let’s say I had an opportunity to engage in a public dialogue, where the Protestant side were represented by Jimmy Lee Swaggart and Jack Chick. Should I do it? (I’m guessing they would concede that that would be a bad idea.)

 

[Wildgraywolf]

I like the “special forces” image.

But anyhow, to let you know where I’m coming from, I have a number (half a dozen at least) of friends who firmly believe in debating the “ambushers”. (Come to think of it, I should be careful what I say since they could be reading this. ) I’ve tried on various occasions to convince them that you have to draw a line somewhere, i.e. that there are some polemics (or ambushes or guerrillics) that are so bad that one shouldn’t engage them.

The response I get back is always some variation of “I can’t let them go unanswered!”

I suspect the way to get my friends to rethink their approach would be to follow their thinking to its logical end. E.g. let’s say I had an opportunity to engage in a public dialogue, where the Protestant side were represented by Jimmy Lee Swaggart and Jack Chick. Should I do it? (I’m guessing they would concede that that would be a bad idea.)

Exactly. Sometimes and with some folks logic & reason tend to evaporate and then you’re faced with folks holding to an irrational paradigm and repeat it like a mantra: “only God can forgive sins” while that’s true it’s also true that God gives that authority to the Church and us AND He expects us to use it. You can’t read the gospels without tripping all over that.

Then you have the ambushers who’ll split hairs with Greek grammar and then I know I’m out of my element.

You mentioned Jack Chick and it dawned on me that perhaps professional apologists might benefit from a working knowledge of psychology.

Anyway, I’ve actually had many successes in explaining the Catholic faith. A few of those folks started out quite hostile towards Catholics and the Catholic Church, but after answering many questions and more than one “lively discussion” they’re like: “Oh, that makes sense.” These folks may never choose to “swim the Tiber”, but at least they have a more accurate understanding of the Catholic faith, more openness to it and have left their hostility go.

 

[ffg]

This site is a great place to practice and build skill for folks who have jobs (or busy lives) other than or outside of ‘professional speaker and writer’ for whatever faith (or no faith).

‘People talking’ has more potential for union among separated people than ‘people not talking’.

Might a discussion clarify or solidify differences? Sure, but it would be foolish for anyone to use one source to accept or reject an issue. (especially a fairly anonymous online person)

Might I be bad? Probably to most, but I know it is not me that moves you, if you are moved. So I don’t mind being bad, just don’t want to be silent, which eliminates the potential.

 

[setarcos]

I’m trying to figure out what the “this statement” is that you got that out of.

Is this your way of stating that you disagree with my assessment or are you saying the quoted person made no statement that I might assesss?